Public Prosecutor v Tan Cheng Yew: Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating by Attorney
Tan Cheng Yew appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction in the District Court for four charges: two for criminal breach of trust under section 409 of the Penal Code and two for cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code. The Public Prosecutor cross-appealed against the sentences imposed. The charges arose from transactions involving funds from the Tan Family. The High Court, presided by Lee Seiu Kin J, dismissed Tan Cheng Yew's appeal against conviction and allowed the Public Prosecutor's appeal, enhancing the overall sentence from nine to twelve years' imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentence enhanced.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tan Cheng Yew appeals his conviction for criminal breach of trust and cheating. The High Court dismisses the appeal and enhances the sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant, Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Tan Ken Hwee, Vala Muthupalaniappan, Magdalene Huang |
| Tan Cheng Yew | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Michael Khoo, Josephine Low |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Ken Hwee | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Vala Muthupalaniappan | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Magdalene Huang | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Michael Khoo | Michael Khoo & Partners |
| Josephine Low | Michael Khoo & Partners |
4. Facts
- Tan Cheng Yew (TCY) was a lawyer entrusted with funds from the Tan Family.
- TCY was charged with criminal breach of trust and cheating.
- TCY used S$1.5 million belonging to the Tan Family as security for a personal loan.
- TCY deceived Tommy Tan into delivering S$480,000 under false pretenses.
- TCY retained S$1,940,724.97 from the sale of Poh Lian shares for his own use.
- TCY deceived Tommy Tan into delivering S$900,000 for a non-existent investment.
- TCY left Singapore in 2003 and was extradited from Germany in 2009.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Tan Cheng Yew and another appeal, Magistrate's Appeals No 97 of 2011/01 and 97 of 2011/02, [2012] SGHC 241
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tan Siew Seng passed away | |
| Memorandum 1 signed | |
| Criminal breach of trust committed | |
| Criminal breach of trust committed | |
| Cheque for S$1.5m forwarded to TCY | |
| TCY deposited cheque into DBS fixed deposit account | |
| Criminal breach of trust committed | |
| Cheating committed | |
| Cheating committed | |
| Tommy Tan issued DBS cheque for S$480,000 to TCY | |
| TCY deposited cheque into POSB account | |
| Cheating committed | |
| Deed of Trust signed | |
| Tommy Tan gave TCY a DBS cheque for S$900,000 | |
| TCY left Singapore | |
| Arrest warrant issued in Singapore | |
| TCY arrested at Munich Airport in Germany | |
| Requisition for extradition made by Minister for Law | |
| Federal Constitutional Court of Germany allowed extradition of TCY to Singapore | |
| TCY returned to Singapore | |
| Magistrate's Appeal No 97 of 2011/02 filed | |
| Magistrate's Appeal No 97 of 2011/01 filed | |
| Trial judge convicted TCY on all four charges | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for criminal breach of trust, finding that the elements of the offence were satisfied.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Entrustment of property
- Dishonest misappropriation
- Acting in the way of business as an attorney
- Related Cases:
- [2002] 2 SLR(R) 1040
- Cheating
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for cheating, finding that the elements of the offence were satisfied.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Deception
- Inducement
- Dishonest inducement to deliver property
- Related Cases:
- [1990] 2 MLJ 197
- Extradition and the Speciality Rule
- Outcome: The court found that there was no breach of the speciality rule in the extradition proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of speciality rule
- Interpretation of extradition treaties
- Admissibility of evidence obtained in extradition proceedings
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court found that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and enhanced the sentence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Manifest inadequacy of sentence
- Aggravating factors
- General deterrence
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Enhanced Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Cheating
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Cheng Yew | District Court | Yes | [2011] SGDC 268 | Singapore | Refers to the judgment of the trial court which convicted TCY on all four charges. |
| Haw Tua Tau and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1981-1982] SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited for the test to determine if there is a case for the defence to answer at the close of the prosecution’s case. |
| Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam and others | House of Lords | Yes | [2003] 2 AC 366 | United Kingdom | Cited to support the argument that it is not in the nature or business of an advocate and solicitor to act as an express trustee. |
| Lim Kok Koon v Tan Cheng Yew and another | High Court | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 111 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that it is not in the nature or business of an advocate and solicitor to act as an express trustee. |
| Lim Hsi-Wei Marc v Orix Capital Ltd and another and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that it is not in the nature of the business of an advocate and solicitor to engage in commercial transactions such as the sale of shares on behalf of his client. |
| R v Seddon | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 1 WLR 2342 | England and Wales | Cited in support of the interpretation argument regarding the speciality rule. |
| The King v Corrigan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1931] 1 KB 527 | England and Wales | Cited for the obiter observation that a treaty could not abrogate or dispense with the power to try a person for any extraditable offence that was proved by the facts on which the surrender of the person was grounded. |
| John Pollitt Davidson | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1977) 64 Cr App R 209 | England and Wales | Cited for the observation that the court is not concerned with the treaty between the country and the country from which the fugitive is to come, and is even less concerned with any decision of the exporting Court ordering the return of the fugitive under the extradition law. |
| Welsh and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 WLR 1281 | England and Wales | Cited for American jurisprudence on the speciality rule based on comity between nations. |
| Sarjit Singh s/o Mehar Singh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 1040 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that advocates and solicitors, when entrusted with their client’s moneys, would fall within the purview of s 409. |
| Wong Kai Chuen Philip v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 361 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the accused persons had pleaded guilty to charges under s 409 in connection with their work as advocates and solicitors. |
| Public Prosecutor v Leong Wai Nam | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 284 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the accused persons had pleaded guilty to charges under s 409 in connection with their work as advocates and solicitors. |
| Sarjit Singh s/o Mehar Singh v Public Prosecutor | District Court | Yes | [2002] SGDC 150 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that s 409 did not apply to an advocate and solicitor. |
| Carl Elias Moses v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 433 | Singapore | Cited to argue that the charge sheet was defective. |
| Chow Dih v Public Prosecutor | Supreme Court | Yes | [1990] 2 MLJ 197 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the deception does not need to have been the sole or main inducement for the victim to have delivered the property to the accused. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Seah Wee and another | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 292 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the leniency that may be extended to an offender who transgresses the law on an isolated occasion does not apply to an offender who was simply fortuitous in avoiding detection on the first occasion. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principles relating to general deterrence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Meow Sim Jenny | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 369 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the larger the amount misappropriated, the greater the degree of culpability, and the more severe the sentence that may be imposed by the court. |
| Gopalakrishnan Vanitha v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 310 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the larger the amount misappropriated, the greater the degree of culpability, and the more severe the sentence that may be imposed by the court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Conveyancing and Law of Property (Conveyancing) Rules 2011 (Cap 61, S 391/2011) r 4 |
| Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, R 8) r 3(1)(A) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 409 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 420 | Singapore |
| Extradition Act (Cap 103, 2000 Rev Ed) s 17 | Singapore |
| Indian Penal Code 1860 s 409 | India |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 29 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 33 | Singapore |
| Partnership Act (Cap 391, 1994 Rev Ed) s 5 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (c 66) (UK) s 87 | United Kingdom |
| Penal Code s 415 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Cheating
- Extradition
- Speciality Rule
- Attorney
- Advocate and Solicitor
- Entrustment
- Dishonest Misappropriation
- Deception
- Inducement
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Cheating
- Attorney
- Extradition
- Singapore
- Penal Code
- Legal Profession
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Professional Misconduct
- Breach of Trust
- Extradition
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Extradition Law
- Trust Law
- Agency Law